Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Alex Tabarrok relays a suggestion today from climate skeptic Ross McKitrick for a carbon tax that would be tied to changes in global temperatures.  If temps go up, the tax goes up.  If they don’t, the tax stays low.  “In theory, both climate change proponents and skeptics ought to agree to this proposal, but I predict the proponents will object,” Tabarrok says, and sure enough:

Addendum: As predicted most of the objections (in the comments) are from climate change proponents.  In essence, they argue that the problem is so serious that we must act before the evidence is in.  Aside from the obvious epistemic problems with such a position do note that a) this is a way of getting agreement where otherwise there might be none b) the tax can be non-linear so it rises (in Bayesian fashion) with the strength of the evidence, i.e. the tax need not always lag.

I know this is my usual cynicism showing, but I suspect pretty strongly that (a) is just wrong.  Conservatives will never agree to anything like this as long as they’re caught in their current cocoon of base pandering denialism and obstruction.  There might be individual conservatives out in think tank land who are willing to discuss this in an academic fashion, but real-world political conservatives almost unanimously think global warming is a hoax designed to allow liberals to take command of the economy.  As long as that’s the case, I think ideas like this will never gain any traction.

As for (b), the devil’s in the details.  The problem is that temperatures lag CO2 increases, and CO2 stays in the atmosphere essentially forever.  By the time temperatures have actually risen, say, 2°C, CO2 concentrations will already be above 500 ppm and there will be nothing we can do to bring them down.  A big carbon tax at that point will have no effect at all.  We need a tax that anticipates future changes, not one that reacts to them.

So what, then, would “strength of the evidence” mean in practice?  Since CO2 is a precursor to climate change, we inevitably have to rely on models of some kind to predict future temperatures.  But skeptics don’t trust climate models, so McKitrick proposes instead a relatively simple function tied to a specific measure of temperature increase:

I suggest that for measuring the effect of greenhouse gases, s(t) should be defined as the mean temperature of the tropical troposphere. Both the UAH and RSS series for the tropical troposphere are updated monthly on-line. I will take the simple annual mean of these two as the appropriate measure.

….[Constants are selected so that the tax in 2002] is $15 per metric tonne of carbon equivalent, in line with the average of about 100 studies of the per-tonne marginal global costs of greenhouse gases as reported in Tol (2005)….As shown in Table 2, [the tax] falls below zero for much of the time prior to the late 1990s. The value reaches a peak of $35.60 in 1998, falls to $15 as of 2002 and is at $8.93 as of 2007.

As I said, I don’t think this kind of proposal is meaningful in the current political climate, but as a talking point it could be interesting.  Obviously the precise nature of the tax (how big it is, how sensitive it is to temperature changes, whether it should change annually or be set on the basis of a multi-year moving average, etc.) is all debatable.  But what about the basic idea?  If it were politically feasible, and not just a distraction from real-world proposals, would something like this be a good idea?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up to $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Corporations and billionaires don’t fund journalism like ours that exists to shake things up. Instead, support from readers allows Mother Jones to call it like it is without fear, favor, or false equivalence.

And right now, a longtime friend of Mother Jones has pledged an incredibly generous gift to inspire—and double—giving from online readers. That's huge! Because you can see that our fall fundraising drive is well behind the $325,000 we need to raise. So if you agree that in-depth, fiercely independent journalism matters right now, please support our work and help us raise the money it takes to keep Mother Jones charging hard. Your gift, and all online donations up $94,000 total, will be matched and go twice as far—but only until the November 9 deadline.

$400,000 to go: Please help us pick up the pace!

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate